Local superintendents said they believe the recently released state educational facilities assessment was "rushed" and it "overstated" the actual costs that will be required to bring school buildings up to standard.

"My overall reaction to the report was that it vastly overstated the true cost of bringing school facilities into compliance with the findings of the court," said Pottsville Superintendent Randall Williams. "For example, our high school, built in 1997 with a major addition in 2000, has a facilities condition cost of $199,790. This building is a modern, well maintained facility that most schools in the state would be proud to have.

"This study, however, seems to indicate that an additional $199,790 needs to be spent on this building. If all the other buildings in the state were looked at this way, it is no wonder the statewide pricetag was so high."

The Arkansas Statewide Educational Facilities Assessment, released last week, estimated the cost of bringing all educational facilities in the state up to standard at $2.3 billion.

According to the study, more than $60 million should be spent improving school facilities in Pope County.

Dover Superintendent Dan Lovelady said he believes rushing the report in its final stages led to some reporting mistakes.

"I believe the assessment teams worked hard, but there appears to be some inconsistencies between the teams," Lovelady said. "I do not agree with the condition assessment they gave our older buildings, because they all have been very well maintained and cared for."

Both Williams and Lovelady said the report failed to provide school officials with adequate information concerning what specific improvements should be made.

"I was very surprised that the report gives us absolutely no specific information identifying what they had assessed as deficient," Lovelady said.

Williams agreed.

"My second reaction (to the report) is that there is not enough information given," he said. "We are given dollar amounts for improvements, yet not told what the recommended improvements are."

According to the report, the Dover School District has approximately $10 million worth of improvements to make to its facilities. In the first year following the study, the report states, $526,488 needs to be spent on facility improvements, including approximately $250,000 on the interiors of its facilities and approximately $200,000 on technology improvements and/or updates.

Pottsville School District, according to the report, has approximately $6.6 million worth of improvements to make to its facilities. More than $400,000 should be spent in the first year following the study, according to the report, including $276,000 on building interiors and $140,000 on specialties.

Both Williams and Lovelady said they believed their districts made an effort to keep facilities well-maintained and up-to-date.

"We feel very good about most of our facilities," Williams said. "Due to the outstanding community support and the foresight of the board of education over the years, the district has very nice facilities that are well-maintained. The older facilities that we do have will be used even less when the new junior high facility is completed in 2006."

Pottsville voters recently approved a 6-mill tax increase to fund the construction of a junior high school. The construction project is in its early stages for the building, which will house seventh, eighth and ninth grades.

Lovelady said school officials often receive compliments from visitors about their buildings, indicating the quality of their structures.

"The Dover district for the last 20-plus years has made maintaining and repairing our facilities a high priority, so I think our buildings are in as good of shape as they can be for their age," Lovelady said.

"We will do three or four roof projects between now and the time school starts in August (2005) that would not be accounted for in this report. Otherwise, we are in pretty good shape district-wide."

Both Dover and Pottsville had very few improvements to make that were classified as falling into the health and safety priority of the report. The report categorized improvements into four categories: health and safety; impact functioning of school; short-term conditions; and least critical.

According to the report, Dover had less than 8 percent of its total cost in the first priority, while Pottsville had less than 6 percent.

"We are very pleased with our Priority 1 assignment listed in the report, but not surprised by it because of our ongoing facility commitment," Lovelady said.

"Some of the things identified here we have been discussing over the last several months before the report."

Williams also said he was pleased, although he felt like the amount the report stated needed to be spent in that category was too high.

"I would expect the amount of work under the health and safety part of this report to be low for the district," Williams said. "Once again, however, I believe the total of $253,000 called for overstates the true costs."

Also, both superintendents disagreed with the reports long-term recommendations for their districts.

"It is inaccurate in our case because it does not take into account the construction of the junior high facility, which is a major upgrade to the district in terms of educational stability, facility condition and projected enrollment growths," Williams said. "It is also inaccurate in some of its general assumptions. This study assumes that many of the systems that go together to make a facility, such as roof systems, flooring, etc., have to be replaced a lot more often than is actually needed."

Lovelady agreed.

"I do not agree with the report's five- to 10-year recommendation on our facilities because they involve replacing some of our buildings that are old but are still in very good condition due to our ongoing maintenance," Lovelady said. "I cannot see it as good utilization of state money to tear down viable facilities just because they are old."

Lovelady said he did not foresee Dover receiving much funding as a result of the report.

"With the overall condition of our facilities and the fairly small amount required in Priority 1, I do not anticipate us receiving much, if any, funding from this report," he said.

Williams said the report could effect funding from the state in two ways.

"First, if the legislature panics at the amount of dollars called for in the report and diverts money away from the foundation funds that schools receive to operate on, we will have less money next year and in future years to support the educational program," Williams said.

"Secondly, if some of the findings of the report become part of mandated legislation that calls for improvements to be made without providing funding for those improvements, then we have an unfunded, or underfunded, mandate. Unfunded mandates also take money away from the educational program, and, by doing so, cause budget problems for the district.

"In other words, we could be told to make a lot of improvements and not get enough money to do the job."

Williams said the report may be a good first step in meeting the mandates of the court, but he does not believe it should be taken as a true estimate of what it takes to bring facilities in the state up to standard.

"It is impractical and unnecessary that every school building in the state be brought up to date on every existing code that exists as of today," Williams said. "If this is true, then we have new, modern buildings built within the last few years that need millions of dollars of work done. Common sense tells us this is unnecessary, but it will be necessary if legislators overreact and don't ask enough questions about this report."

Lovelady said he believes much more specific information is needed before districts can determine what actually needs to be done.

"If we ever receive the specific data that goes along with the recommendations in this report, we will do everything we can to address those items," Lovelady said. "I believe many of the things identified in this report will be the very things we already take care of on a regular schedule of replacement and/or repair.

"In talking with other superintendents around the state, this report has many, many errors and inconsistencies. But I believe the committee and the assessment teams tried to do the best they could."